List IP routes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description does not contradict these. It adds the contextual note that kind=default reveals which link traffic leaves through, which provides behavioral insight beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on limits, formatting, or any side effects (none expected for a read-only operation). Given the annotations already cover safety, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no superfluous content. The main return is front-loaded ('The routing table...'), and the optional parameter guidance follows. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with fully specified parameters and no output schema required, the description covers the essential purpose and a key use case. It does not describe the exact output format, but that is not mandated for a straightforward list operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (kind and limit) are fully documented in the input schema. The description only reinforces the kind=default usage without adding new meaning. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies; the description adds little beyond what is already structured.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource (routing table) and the fields it returns (destination, gateway, outgoing interface, metric). It also mentions the use of kind=default for the default route, adding specificity. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_vpn or get_connection_status, so purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a specific usage hint for kind=default ('tells you which link traffic leaves through') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_interfaces or get_connection_status. There is no explicit when/when-not comparison, though the default-route use case offers some context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.